But [Obama's] claiming to defeat al-Qaida is like claiming to have definitively won a whack-a-mole game.
Barry Rubin writes about lessons learned as Algerian Hostage Crisis Ends with Military Assault: So How is Al-Qaida Dead?
One of the main themes of President Barack Obama in discussing his foreign policy is to claim the success of having destroyed al-Qaida. The fact that this organization has just pulled off the seizure of more than 800 hostages at an Algerian oilfield is only the biggest out of dozens of examples that shows this claim is untrue. The Muslim hostages were released and the Christian foreigners were kept prisoner. On January 19, after a four-day stand-off, Algerian soldiers staged a rescue mission in which all of the terrorists and most of the hostages were killed.
Rubin notes 2 points to keep in mind following this latest al Qaeda attack:
o Al Qaeda's focus is on destroying already existing institutions -- not on Islamist revolutions, leading to new governments, and transformed states. The latter is the function of the Muslim Brotherhood (the group the Obama administration is working so hard to help).
o The Obama Administration’s concept of Islamism and terrorism is designed by CIA director-designate John Brennan. According to his barrow definition of what constitutes 'bad' in the Islamist world, al-Qaida is bad strictly because it attacks Americans. By contrast, the Obama administration finds other “mainstream” Islamists—including the Afghan Taliban, which helped in the September 11 operation—basically good because we can 'moderate' them and thus keep the radicals from seizing power.
The irony is that this puts the Obama administration in the rather odd position of looking to the Muslim Brotherhood, of all places, to save the US from Al Qaeda.
Which leaves the question of who will save us from the Obama administration?